-
[QUOTE=Timothy Hunter;5326554]The second half of Starman is a slog to get through. I loved the first 40 or so issues but Stars My Destination and Grand Guignol were so tediously long that I actually prefer Roger Stern's Will Peyton Starman despite that series not being as good as first couple years of Robinson's Starman.[/QUOTE]
This is what has kept me from ever re-reading Starman. The series was never as good once Harris left and I'm afraid that Cry For Justice has ruined Robinson for me, so the first half will come off as pretentious.
That said, The Golden Age is still an all-time classic.
-
[QUOTE=Bored at 3:00AM;5326633]This is what has kept me from ever re-reading Starman. The series was never as good once Harris left and I'm afraid that Cry For Justice has ruined Robinson for me, so the first half will come off as pretentious.
That said, The Golden Age is still an all-time classic.[/QUOTE]
I mean, no less an authority on Robinson than Robinson himself has publically admitted (even in text pieces he's written in DC publications) that he was a particularly pretentious, arrogant snob when he was wrote The Golden Age and started writing Starman. See his treatment of the Will Payton character, from the "Times Past" issue featuring him to his "revelation" that Payton was never actually Payton but instead was Prince Gavin from Throneworld the whole time, suffering amnesia. It came across as Robinson saying "The Will Payton Starman sucked, his book sucked, and he should never have been created." Even the retcon of Sadie being Will's sister Jayne using her middle name feels forced, because Jayne in the 80's STARMAN book and Sadie in the 90's STARMAN book come off as completely different character.
Heck, even some of his work on Golden Age characters in Starman and The Golden Age (especially the parts that address the work Roy Thomas did with them in his Earth-Two titles) comes across as Robinson saying, "Roy Thomas got this stuff wrong, and I'm here to get it right."
-
[QUOTE=Timber Wolf-By-Night;5326654]
Heck, even some of his work on Golden Age characters in Starman and The Golden Age (especially the parts that address the work Roy Thomas did with them in his Earth-Two titles) comes across as Robinson saying, "Roy Thomas got this stuff wrong, and I'm here to get it right."[/QUOTE]
Oh, definitely. I think once The Golden Age went from being an in-continuity story about the Post-Zero Hour retelling of the JSA's final days to an Elseworlds tale, I think Robinson decided to go kill-crazy because the story didn't need to vibe with anything else.
-
[QUOTE=Korath;5317698]All-Star Superman. I really hated it when everyone said it was a must read.[/QUOTE]
Not a fan, either.
I also never understood all the hype around Loeb and McGuiness' Superman - Batman run. It's okay, and has pretty art, but I found it so souless, such a lazy storytelling, so done by the numbers, that I really can't say I understand why it became SUCH a classic.
Peace
-
[QUOTE=Bored at 3:00AM;5326633]This is what has kept me from ever re-reading Starman. The series was never as good once Harris left and I'm afraid that Cry For Justice has ruined Robinson for me, so the first half will come off as pretentious.
That said, The Golden Age is still an all-time classic.[/QUOTE]
Reread it a year or two ago and it does, but that helps it. Jack IS kind of pretentious himself. It works. The back half is weaker but I still enjoyed it a lot.
But yeah, it comes off that way [I]Cry For Irrelevance[/I] or no.
-
I've never really liked "Must There Be a Superman". I like both Maggin and Loeb, but I think this one is real overrated. I don't like the idea it puts forth particularly, or the execution much either. Superman refusing to help someone except when it's something they couldn't deal with themselves, really strikes me as antithetical to the "No job too big, no job too small" ethic the character usually embodies.
-
[QUOTE=Adekis;5327413]I've never really liked "Must There Be a Superman". I like both Maggin and Loeb, but I think this one is real overrated. I don't like the idea it puts forth particularly, or the execution much either. Superman refusing to help someone except when it's something they couldn't deal with themselves, really strikes me as antithetical to the "No job too big, no job too small" ethic the character usually embodies.[/QUOTE]
It's only the second story that Elliot Maggin ever wrote for the comic books and the first Superman story he ever did--it happens to be an idea that he talked to Jeph Loeb about when Loeb was only 12 or 13. It features the artwork of Curt Swan and Murphy Anderson (with some spectacular inking effects from Anderson, which knocked my socks off--you don't really see the reprints doing it justice). It guest stars the Guardians of the Universe--and more importantly Katma Tui, the greatest Green Lantern in my book. It comes very soon after the Sand Superman Saga ended--wherein O'Neil used an arbitrary physical element to limit Superman's powers--but here Maggin is introducing a psychological limitation, which I think is a much better way to write the Man of Steel.
All of these factors alone should make it a worthwhile story.
In the adventure, the Metropolis Marvel doesn't refuse to help the people--he springs into action. It's just that the Guardians have planted this idea in his head. It says more about the Guardians of the Universe than it says about the Last Son of Krypton. They're such sadistic control freaks. One is left to believe that while Superman is always on call to help those in need, he does actually think about what he's doing and how it might affect humanity. He's not just a flying brick.
It's an idea that Maggin throws out there--just as he threw it out to Julius Schwartz at their plotting session--for us to consider. Whenever Superman doesn't do something--it's there in the conversation as a possible explanation for why he doesn't solve all the world's problems--and it's much better than green Kryptonite or magic, in my opinion, because it makes Superman a philosophical character. Yet Maggin never fell back on this story element again. It might exist in more subtle forms in other work, but this was his first stab at the character--and a pretty good stab for an inexperienced writer. His stories became more sophisticated later on.
Still, it was only one of three stories in that issue. And my favourite was The Private Life of Clark Kent story--the first official feature under that heading--with even better art by Swan and Anderson (just amazing inks from Murph). And Denny O'Neil in his own way was going along the same track--establishing limits that came from the character himself rather than from outside forces.
I don't do ratings--I'm not sure what source everyone is getting these ratings from--I just think SUPERMAN 247 was well worth the quarter I paid for it. If someone is suggesting that you try this story out--they're not trying to hurt you, they're trying to do you a favour. They're suggesting it because it has an important place in the history of the character and those who fashioned his adventures.
-
-
[QUOTE=Lightning Rider;5319341]I'm not sure what the fuss over Hush was all about. Jim Lee's art was good, but the writing was odd and underwhelming. It's constantly referred to as a Batman classic, but it feels like very little happens in it, and Bruce isn't sketched out very well. (At least that's my memory of the experience.)[/QUOTE]
This was my experience as well. I read it as my first Batman story some years ago and was left pretty underwhelmed. I found it repetitive and a bit dull, but the artwork was terrific.
-
I forgot to mention this but I do not care for Hush outside of the character design.
-
[QUOTE=Timothy Hunter;5326559]I feel like DC's mistreatment of certain characters was always present, but it was a cancer that grew over time.[/QUOTE]
It has definitely gotten worse over time, and shifted targets due to DiDio. Like Wally being wiped from existence after Flashpoint and what was done to him when he was brought back can overall be considered worse than what happened to Kara Zor-El, since she at least went out on a high note.
But at the end of the day, wiping all traces of either character from continuity and preventing them from coming back due to editorial edicts was bad. One being worse than the other and happening later doesn't mean the earlier instance for another character a less stupid decision.
-
Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns. I read them both and found them to be "blah" at best.
-
The Killing joke is another book that I never really understood.
The Bolland artwork is great, but as a story it left me cold...... and that ending.
Just, no.
-
Hush ended the streak of great stories that had befallen the Batman titles from the 70s to the early 2000s. From that point onward there were good books and there were bad books but the cosistency from decades prior had vanished.
The Killing Joke is just akin to an above average of episode of Batman The Animated Series. It's good, but not even in the top 20 of Alan Moore's best comics.
-
[QUOTE=Timothy Hunter;5328732]Hush ended the streak of great stories that had befallen the Batman titles from the 70s to the early 2000s. From that point onward there were good books and there were bad books but the cosistency from decades prior had vanished.
The Killing Joke is just akin to an above average of episode of Batman The Animated Series. It's good, but not even in the [b]top 20 of Alan Moore's best comics[/b].[/QUOTE]
(From the peanut gallery)
Toooom Stroooooong!
